At the time he was president Islamic resistance movement (Hamas) in Gaza Yahya Al-Sanwar He meets Israeli detainees and prisoners in Gaza and promises them safety and reassures them of their situation and fate. The Israeli Prime Minister was Benjamin Netanyahu Some members of his government are arguing to accept the truce, which he initially opposed, and he accepted under duress due to the realities of the field and politics and the severity of international positions against the Israeli attack, which turned into a war on hospitals and civilians.
More than 50 days after the war declared by Netanyahu, in which Israel killed more than 15,000 Palestinians, including 70% of children and women, and also destroyed the northern Gaza Strip and forced about a million civilians from its population to forcibly migrate to the south, it finally yielded to a temporary truce. It included a prisoner exchange deal in 4 stages, with an initial extension of two days.
According to most military analyses, the Israeli occupation army and the war government failed to achieve the high levels of attack on Gaza after “Al-Aqsa floodIn practice, Israel needed a truce more than resistance Gaza strip For political, military and internal reasons, especially after the erosion of the justifications given internationally by the war government led by Netanyahu to justify brute force.
Netanyahu and the disappointment of the truce
Israeli analyzes indicate that the course of the process of releasing detainees and prisoners from the heart of Gaza, in the remarkable presence of Al-Qassam elements, in what resembled a military parade, and the freed persons waving their hands to the people of Gaza and Al-Qassam elements, indicates that there is another battle that Netanyahu lost, as it distorted the “image of victory” that the Israeli Prime Minister was seeking. . The Palestinian resistance also broadcast many military, political and humanitarian messages.
Political analyst Michael Clarke says in the British newspaper The Times, “Tel Aviv has lost control of the war, and that Hamas was skillful and able to maneuver through its handling of the prisoner crisis.” This includes the manner of their release and what they reported about their detention period, which severely undermined the Israeli narratives.
The letter of thanks that the captive Israeli settler, Daniel Aloni, wrote and left to her captors (members of the Al-Qassam Brigades) about the way they treated her and her daughter, “Emilia,” and was published by the resistance, is a painful blow to Netanyahu in front of Israeli and international public opinion, as she says, “It seems that we will part ways tomorrow, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart.” My heart goes out to you for the unnatural humanity you showed towards my daughter Emilia. Children should not be in captivity, but thanks to you and other good people we met along the way, my daughter considered herself a queen in Gaza.”
Sinwar’s interview with the prisoners and detainees, who is a “dead man walking,” according to Netanyahu’s expression, and his failure to give up on any of the terms of the truce, was a military and political message at the same time, just as the scene of the third batch of detainees leaving the “Palestine Roundabout” in central Gaza showed – which Israel said it was occupying it – Al-Qassam elements are fully prepared, with Palestinians chanting in the street.
The resistance’s messages were numerous, stating steadfastness, control, and military and political preparedness, and they reached hundreds of thousands of Israelis watching the operation and the Netanyahu government, as expressed by the military analyst at the Israeli “Wala” website, Amir Bouhbut, by saying, “Hamas has gouged out the eye of Israel,” while the writer commented “Yedediah Shatrin” reported on this in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, saying that “the Sinwar struck the Israeli Achilles’ heel with a direct arrow,” invoking Greek mythology.
At a time when Israeli society is deeply divided over the issue of prisoners, and Netanyahu is under enormous pressure, Hamas has appropriately exploited the truce in the media and politically to increase pressure on the Israeli Prime Minister and increase his embarrassment in front of his community, and to address world public opinion, as well as to dismantle and drop the arguments on which false Israeli narratives were built. And emotional situations.
The resistance fought a battle of awareness coinciding with the release of prisoners and detainees from both sides, where the world – which did not want to know – discovered that Israel was also detaining women and children and that the Hamas movement treated its prisoners, according to their testimonies, with great humanitarian concern and concern before the world, while Israel was treating the prisoners. In a manner of humiliation, beating, starvation, and threats of rape.
Returning to October 7, the truce option was not on the table or acceptable to Netanyahu, and the war’s goals were to liberate the prisoners and eliminate the Hamas movement and its military structure, in addition to liquidating the leaders of the resistance, led by Yahya Al-Sinwar and Muhammad Al-Deif, the chief of staff of the Al-Qassam Brigades, so that Netanyahu was forced to accept the truce and its conditions. Without achieving any goal of the military operation, his internal and external predicament increases, and the “image of victory” he wanted burns. At a time when more than 100 prisoners remain with the resistance, it is expected that the issue of prisoners, especially Israeli military personnel, will be the cornerstone.
Moral decline and shifts in public opinion
In accordance with Article 40 of the Israeli Basic Law, Tel Aviv involved more than 550,000 soldiers in its war on Gaza, according to what the British newspaper “The Times” reported, as it called in 360,000 reserve soldiers, that is, 20 times more than the force it attributes to Hamas, which is estimated at 25. A thousand fighters. This superiority is not limited to the numbers of soldiers, but also extends to military equipment and advanced technology.
With the start of the ground battle launched by Israel in Gaza, the mission of the occupation army became complicated, as it was seeking to achieve its military objectives in a quick and rapid manner. Israel was relatively able to split Gaza militarily in two halves, but the resistance destroyed 355 Israeli military vehicles, at a rate of 7 vehicles per day, as he admitted. The Israeli army has killed more than 70 soldiers since the start of its ground attack on the Gaza Strip.
On the other hand, the outcome of the 50-day war on Gaza was a military dilemma and a moral downfall for the Israeli army, during which the compass of world public opinion, which had been influenced by the dominant Israeli narratives, changed. The campaign began with a racist statement by Defense Minister Yoav Galant about the residents of Gaza and cutting off water, electricity, food and medicine. More than two million Palestinians, and the bombing of hospitals, shelter centers and safe corridors in what resembled a “genocidal campaign”, was shocking in its brutality, and in which Israel dropped all principles, values, customs and laws related to the humanitarian dimension of wars, according to what its critics say.
As a result, the “self-defense measures” with which Israel justifies its wars, which resonated with Western countries and organizations, were undermined, as voices opposing it continued globally due to the effect of extreme brutality against civilians and infrastructure, after which there was no context for talking about a “victory” or “image.” “Victory” for the Israeli army, Benjamin Netanyahu is trying hard to search for it.
Yossi Klein believes, in an article in Haaretz newspaper, that Netanyahu is hijacking Israel, and that he believes that the “victory” he is looking for will forgive him for his failure in the attack on the army on October 7 – as he says – asking about the definition of victory? “Let me guess, he himself (Netanyahu) does not know. In any case, the victory he wants is not a victory for the Israelis.”
False promises and internal dilemma
Internal rejection of the war is also rising, as part of Israeli public opinion believes that the goal was to release prisoners and detainees without the military and moral dilemma that intensified on a daily basis during the battles in Gaza, but the high ceiling for the war set by Netanyahu and his government constituted an element of crisis and division within Israeli society.
Many demonstrations took place against Netanyahu, holding him responsible for the situation and accusing him of waging “his own war to save his reputation,” remaining in power, and “proceeding to destroy our dilapidated collective social, economic, and defense infrastructure,” as writer Yossi Verter said in Haaretz newspaper.
In his reading of what is happening, writer Nahum Barnea admits in his article in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that “wars cannot be won with false promises,” referring to the promises made by Netanyahu in the beginning to eliminate the Hamas movement and free the prisoners.
Barnea believes that Hamas is still strong and controls the land, and that its strength is manifested through negotiating “hostages” and its demands, which are also implemented in the northern Gaza Strip, where the Israeli army is deployed, and not just in the south.
For his part, former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Giora Eiland, believes that “if Israel accepts a truce, this means that the war has ended without eliminating Hamas, which not only controls the Gaza Strip militarily, but we also see this in the negotiations and the ability to communicate and provide for the needs of the population.” Of food, fuel, cooking gas and other things.”
These comments indicate that the structure of Israeli society is in a state of boiling and disintegration under the impact of the course of the war on Gaza, the failure of the campaign to achieve its goals, and the continuation of battles, which have caused economic paralysis as a result of the continued call-up of reserve soldiers, their withdrawal from the labor market, and the disruption of many sectors, at a time when the cost is estimated. Initial economic losses of more than $50 billion, and the overcrowding of airports with those wishing to leave, indicate a loss of certainty in Israel’s project itself.
The dilemma of getting out of trouble
When resistance was launched in Gaza, led by the Chief of Staff of the Al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas) Muhammad Al-Deif The name “Flood” was given to the military strike it directed against Israel. It was well aware of the extent to which the name was linked militarily to the immediate results of the attack and its future repercussions on the Israeli interior and the Netanyahu government, which includes the most extremist Israeli party leaders.
Netanyahu relies heavily on the support of right-wing parties, including “Religious Zionism” led by extremist settler Bezalel Smotrich and the “Jewish Power” party led by far-right Itamar Ben Gvir, both of whom support the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and also favor the eventual expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank. Gaza to be reoccupied.
The Israeli Walla website indicated that Ben Gvir and Smotrich threatened to dismantle Netanyahu’s government and withdraw from it, and Ben Gvir considered that “stopping the war means dissolving the government,” after talking about extending the ceasefire in exchange for releasing more prisoners every day.
The American website Stratfor believes that the Netanyahu government faces challenges in dealing with local and international demands for the final status plan in Gaza after the war, due to its heavy reliance on extremist right-wing alliances.
The American website believes that Ben Gvir and Smotrich will not give up their positions in light of the new pressures to reach an agreement on Gaza, which will further complicate the political scene.
In an interview with the Hebrew Channel 12 – two weeks ago – Ben Gvir said, “I now call for the occupation of the Gaza Strip.” In addition, some members of the Israeli Likud Party are concerned about their political future, given the party’s decline in popularity. A recent public opinion poll conducted by the Israeli newspaper Maariv showed that only 27% of Israelis consider Netanyahu suitable for the position of prime minister, while 52% believe that the minister in the House of Representatives The war Benny Gantz is best suited to take over. The poll also showed that the Likud Party would obtain 18 seats if the elections were held today.
This indicates the division that has begun to intensify and the stifling political crisis that Israel is experiencing due to the course of the war in Gaza, the escalating differences in the approach to the solution and the war, the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance, and the shifts in global public opinion with the exposure of the brutality of the Israeli aggression, the erosion of pretexts, and international fear of the expansion of the war, while Netanyahu continues. He was in internal, political and military crisis, and was confused about the war, negotiations, truce, and exit from the Gaza impasse, and the “image of victory” that he wanted to achieve had been burned.
